"Michael Daly" ) writes:

The difference between hard and rounded chine in practice is negligible - at
least for kayaks. You'd have a hard time finding two kayaks that have a
difference that you could attribute to the chines and could also feel the
difference.

TF Jones disagrees with you. So do I based on what you wrote earlier about
the effect of hull scratches and gouges.
You'll have to be more specific. I looked at all the pages and figures and
can't see anything that specifies the characteristics of a spherical hull.
He has circular cross sections, but not spherical hulls.

If the spherical hull does not have the least surface to volume ratio,
please tell us what shape does.

Could you explain the significance of "spherical" hulls, because only the arc
of the circle below the waterline gets wetted?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

William R. Watt wrote:
Brian Nystrom ) writes:

William R. Watt wrote:


companies like Chesapeke(?) Light Craft and Pygmy Boats sell plywood boats
and kits make from computer cut panels. people buy the boats or they
can assemble the kits themselves and save a lot of money.

Compared to what? When you factor in all the tools and other supplies,
plus the time involved, there is no savings at all. Building boats is a
labor of love, not an economic expedient.


I've already mentioned the 1/3 cost savig nin building "stripper" boats from
a kit. That includes all the materials and assumes you have a few basic
tools on hand. Buildign boats is not a labour of love, it is mostly a way
of being able to afford the cost of the boat. I don't know where you get
this "labour of love" business. The same place you got the 2% hull
scratches friction, somewhere in the deep dark obscure recesses of your
imagination?

It's real simple Bill, so perhaps even you can understand it. The price
of a stripper kayak kit that includes seat parts, footpegs, deck rigging
and finishing supplies is $1200-$1400 (based on the prices from Newfound
Woodworks) plus shipping, which isn't cheap since they must be shipped
by truck. Unless one is already a woodworker, you can figure on adding
several hundred dollars for the cost of tools and the materials to build
a strongback, sawhorses, etc., to the cost of the kit an supplies. That
brings your your total hardware and supplies cost up to $1500~$2000.
When you factor in the 200-300 hours of labor involved in building a
stripper (typical numbers derived from what hobbyist builders report on
kayak building sites), even if you only value your time at $10/hour
(slave wages), you're looking at a real cost of $3500-$5000 for your
first boat. Subsequent boats will be somewhat cheaper since you now have
the tools and strongback, but that's assuming that you build more than one.

Considering that you can buy a new 'glass boat for ~$2500 or a used one
for as little ~$1000 (I've bought several at that price), where is your
savings, Bill? You accuse me of imaginative, yet it's quite obvious that
your "1/3 savings" figure is wishful thinking at best. I enjoy building
boats, but I'm under no illusion that it saves me any money. The main
reason for building a boat (other than the recreational aspects of
woodworking) is that I get exactly what I want.

More importantly, what percentage of kayakers build their own boats? For
that matter, what percentage is even capable of it or has a place to do
it? You seem to forget that we live in a country where most people can't
even change the oil in their cars, let alone build kayaks.

enough people build their own canoeos and kayaks to make the selling of
plans and kits profitable.

What does that prove? It doesn't cost much to design a boat and sell
plans. Both plans and kits are much more profitable than selling
commercial kayaks.

belive it or not there are even people out there
building birch bark canoes and teaching the building of birch bark canoes,
and canoe camping in the birch bark canoes they built.

Gee, Bill, REALLY???? Wow, that's INCREDIBLE!!!! I've never heard of
anyone actually BUILDING a boat or TEACHING people to build boats!!!!
You must be the smartest, most informed person ON THE ENTIRE PLANET!!!!

building a small boat is not rocket science.

You have a truly amazing grasp of the obvious.

I've lost count of the number
of webistes full of photos of novices building their own canoes and kayaks
every one starting with a comment to the effect, "Before starting to build
my own canoe (or kayak) I'd never so much as changed a light bulb. I was a
complet kutz with two left thumbs." and so on ad infinitum.

Yet boat builders are still a MINUSCULE percentage of the total number
of kayakers. You really need to get a grip on the reality of the market.
To put some perspective on it, I belong to a club with over 400 members
in it. Out of those, I know of 9 (2.25%) who have built boats. That's
among paddlers who are dedicated enough to join a club. We represent
only a small fraction of the total kayaking population, the majority of
whom paddle plastic recreational boats. Based on that, I think it's safe
to say kayak builders represent well under 1% of the kayaking
population. Is that specific enough for you???

I've read
somewhere some Brian Nystrom guy built his own first boat at one time.

You read wrong. I built my third boat. My first two were commercial boats.

While it's certainly possible to custom design and cut panels for stitch
and glue boats, no one does so. The closest thing to it is Newfound
Woodworks will take a customer's design and make the panels for them,
but there are even fewer people who can design a boat than there are
than can build them.

that doesn't mean it can't be done. I wrote that it could be done. I did
nto write taht it was beign done. There are a lot of things in this world
that could be done, or could be done better, that aren't. that was my point.

Whether it CAN be done or not is irrelevant if it's NOT being done. If
you think it's such a good idea and has profit potential, go ahead and
do it. The people who already possess the equipment and the expertise
aren't doing it, so I suspect that they don't believe that it's a
commercially viable proposition.

No kidding, but it's even more complex and time consuming to build one
than it is to do a S&G. BTW, I do build skin-on-frame boats, so I have
an idea what's involved.

I don't see your point. The major savings in building one's own boat is in
labour. You build it yourself to save the cost or paying someone
esle to build ti for you. YOu also save other costs such as "shop" costs
by building it in your garage, attic, or living room.

I've already addressed this fallacy above. Either it's a "labor of love"
and you don't count the labor cost, or you're not saving anything. You
can't have it both ways, Bill.

as for the preformance of flat panel (hard chine) hulls its actually the
turbulence at the chines which creates more drag at higher speeds compared
to smooth chined hulls. the wetted surface vs wave-making again.

While turbulence is certainly a possibility with a poor design, it's not
a given. The wetted surface area is what makes the difference. Why do
you think that EVERY racing boat made has a rounded hull? Read the
manufacturer's literatue and read basic information on boat design and
they all say the same thing: round hulls have less surface area for a
given displacement than hard chine hulls. A spherical hull would have
the absolute least wetted area, but obviously, it would no longer be a
kayak or canoe.

I think you'd better take another look at what I wrote. Hard chined boats
do have a bit more wetted surface but the turbulence at the hard chine has
a bigger effect, moreso as speed increases. (Lapped strake boats have the
same increase in resistance.)

Where does this come from? I don't see any reason why a chine has to
cause turbulence. Lapstrake boats are not comparable with single chine
kayaks, whose chines are typically fully immersed and which have
smoother entries and exits. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Interestingly, and contrary to what yoru
write above, a spherical hull does nto have the minimum wetted surface.
That's because only part of the shpere is immersed, ie. a chord of the
circle. John Winters (www.greenvall.com/winters.html) has some diagrams to
illustrate this. I thought as you did until I saw his examples.

That link doesn't work. The correct link is:

www.greenval.com/jwinters.html

I realize that only a chord of the sphere is in the water. If you look
at the diagram at

http://www.greenval.com/fig1_3.gif

....it shows exactly what I was talking about. For a given beam width,
the spherical hull has the least wetted surface. If you ignore the beam
width and look only at equal displacement, a spherical hull still has
the least wetted surface. Although shape E is not perfectly spherical,
it's pretty obvious that a spherical shape with slightly increased depth
would have as little or perhaps slightly less surface area. This
explains why racing boat hulls are narrow and round. It's too bad he
chose not to include such a sample in the diagram.

some places you read about wetted surface vs wave-making. other places
its wetted surface vs residual resistance, where residual resistance is
any kind of drag that's not surface friction and includes drag due to
wave-making, poor tracking, hard chines, etc.

That's not the point, you can have two boats with the same wavemaking
resistance and one with a rounded hull will have less drag than one with
a hard chine hull, due strictly to the difference in wetted surface area.

nope, the drag of the hard chine hull includes the turbulence about the
chine which is greater than the difference in friction resistance.

Again, where is the reference? I don't believe that a single hard chine
is going to cause turbulence in an of itself in a well designed kayak.

but
don't forget you can have a V-bottom hard chined boat which tracks better
than a round bottom hull with the same length and wetted surface and the
hard chined hull will have less residual resistance because it spends less
time slewing around, and more time going straight. as we have all seen,
the boat with the rounded bottom cross section will often have "deadwood"
added at the bow and stern or a skeg (or rudder) or both to help it track,
and these add wetted surface to the rounded hull.

You're drawing a lot of invalid conclusions here. A long, narrow,
rounded hull with straight keel line (typical racing hull configuration)
tracks VERY strongly. One reason why most of them have rudders is to
enable the paddler to turn the boat, not because it won't track. The
main reason for rudders is to get maximum efficiency from the powerplant
(the paddler). It's more efficient to have a small rudder to control the
direction of the boat than it is to use leans and sweep strokes, which
reduce the biomechanical efficiency of the stoke.

By "deadwood" are you referring to bow and stern overhangs? If so, they
do nothing to aid tracking, as they're not in the water most of the time.

It's very obvious that you've never worked in retail. I have
extensively, including owning a retail business. Your perceptions about
the buying public couldn't be farther off the mark. Most people,
especially first time buyers of a product, are CLUELESS. Most simply
want someone to guide them to a suitable product quickly and not screw
them over. It really IS that simple! If you were to start talking about
horsepower and other technicalities, their eyes would quickly glaze over
and they'll find a reason to leave, after which they'll go buy elsewhere
from someone who doesn't bore or intimidate them. I know this because
I've worked in businesses where technical data was widely available and
we always took the approach of educating people as much as possible and
helping them make the right decision for themselves (consultative
selling). In doing so, you learn that there is a VERY fine line between
enough information and "information overload" and that it's different
for every customer. If someone comes in looking for "a yellow kayak",
they're not going to hang around while you explain advanced
hydrodynamics to them. You set them up the best you can, offer as much
information as they'll tolerate, take their money and let them be on
their way. I didn't like the way I was forced to do business in some
cases, but I figured that they were better off if they came to me and I
at least had the opportunity to offer them useful information, than if
they went and bought at one of the "Marts" from some bored high school
kid who couldn't care less.


I agree when a person walks in off the street do not want to be
"overloaded" with information that has no meaning to them, however they
can understand information realted to their strength, weight, and body
size. They might not know anything about boats but they certainly do know
a lot about themselves. That's my point. The information should be
provided in a way that relates to the buyer, not the boat. It makes nto
sense to graph boat speed vs total resistance when it can just as easily
be plotted against horsepower with reference lines drawn for average (1/20
hp), athletic (1/4 hp), and absolute maximum sprinting (1/5 hp) power
output of humans. People will consult and use meaningful, relevant
information.

I'll guarantee you that if you stick a graph in the faces of customers,
the overwhelming majority of them will have no idea what they're looking
at, nor will they care. On the other hand, if a dealer simply told them
that a particular boat was well suited to someone their size, that same
percentage would accept that. The few that would understand the graph
might ask "why", in which case you can offer a more detailed explanation.

My areas of expertise in my former life was not selling boat but in
numerical computer systems and statistics. One my areas of research and
application was the graphical analysis and display of numerical
information. So I just might possibly also know of that which I write.

That confirms something I had suspected.

While I certainly wouldn't question your data analysis capability, it
has nothing to do with the way people react to information in real
world. What makes perfect sense to you would be nothing more than
"technical gibberish" to most people. I've dealt with people in the real
world (as a retailer and as a technical trainer) and I can tell you
unequivocally that's a FACT.

No, it's because most people have no clue what they need and they're
looking for someone to hold their hand through the buying process. It's
also because most are either too lazy or too disinterested to do any
research for themselves. Many simply aren't capable of understanding
technical data (or at least they're convinced that they're not). You may
not like it, but those are the hard facts of retail. People like you and
I and some others here are but a tiny minority of the buying public.
Only the niche market companies will bother to cater to us, because
that's what separates them from the mainstream.

I have to disagree. Blaming the buyer for the seller's failure to provide
important information in a form the buyer can use is a cop out. Sellers
who blame customers for their own failings are at risk of having someone
take their customers away from them.

Sorry Bill, but whether you like it or not, that's the way it works in
the real world. While I agree that that manufacturers should make
technical information available, doing so would be largely a wasted
effort as the overwhelming majority of customers would neither
understand it or care. Given that, I can't fault them for not wasting
their resources to distribute this information widely. Selling the boat
is the dealer's job; the manufacturer should provide them with the
information to do so, but they're not responsible for getting it to the
customer. If they want to put it on a web site where interested
customers can find it, fine, but including it in marketing literature
would be an unnecessary expense and waste of paper.

William R. Watt wrote:

Brian Nystrom ) writes:

Michael Daly wrote:


On 1-Jun-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote:



wait just a darned minute, are you saying the data you presented is not
test data but is calculated from dimensions using Winter's KAPER model?
that's not data. sorry, it doesn't count as data.


No one does tank testing of kayaks. Too expensive. All data published
in Sea Kayaker is based on both KAPER and Taylor. Both produce similar
results. These calculations have been calibrated with real test data.

If you want better data, you'll look long and hard.

Better yet, do it yourself if you think it's so important.


Do you think I could get a research grant from the Defence Department?
Don't commandos, or whatever they are calling them now, use kayaks? Half a
knot could mean the difference between victory and defeat for an enire
invasion force. How do military policy makers measure the cost of kayak
research in body bags?

Considering that they use short, wide folding boats, obviously there are
other considerations that are deemed more important than hull efficiency
by the military.

On 6-Jun-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote:

The difference between hard and rounded chine in practice is negligible - at
least for kayaks. You'd have a hard time finding two kayaks that have a
difference that you could attribute to the chines and could also feel the
difference.

TF Jones disagrees with you.

Reference please. My information comes from John Winters himself.


So do I based on what you wrote earlier about
the effect of hull scratches and gouges.

??? When did I ever write that gouges and scratches have a significant
effect on drag?

If the spherical hull does not have the least surface to volume ratio,
please tell us what shape does.

Could you explain the significance of "spherical" hulls, because only the arc
of the circle below the waterline gets wetted?

They are a starting point in looking at the effects of hull shape on resistance.

Mike

Brian Nystrom ) writes:

It's real simple Bill, so perhaps even you can understand it. The price
of a stripper kayak kit that includes seat parts, footpegs, deck rigging
and finishing supplies is $1200-$1400 (based on the prices from Newfound
Woodworks) plus shipping, which isn't cheap since they must be shipped
by truck. Unless one is already a woodworker, you can figure on adding
several hundred dollars for the cost of tools and the materials to build
a strongback, sawhorses, etc., to the cost of the kit an supplies. That
brings your your total hardware and supplies cost up to $1500~$2000.

You are overstating the cost here. You don't have to be a "woodworker",
merely a homeowner, to have an electric drill (with sanding disk) and an
electric jigsaw or circular saw (either will do for cutting curves on thin
plywood. You can cut your own strips as well if you want with a tabel saw.
And you don't even need a table saw. All you have to do is cut a slot in a
piece of plywood and mount a circular saw upside down in it. It's common
practice among beginner boatbuilders. I've done that twice. I don't own a
table saw. I have not bought any extra tools for boatbulding. Nor would
most others. In fact I saved money buying the few tools that I have by
doing odd jobs around the house myself instead of paying someone else to
do them, which leads us to the next item, labour.

When you factor in the 200-300 hours of labor involved in building a
stripper (typical numbers derived from what hobbyist builders report on
kayak building sites), even if you only value your time at $10/hour
(slave wages), you're looking at a real cost of $3500-$5000 for your
first boat. Subsequent boats will be somewhat cheaper since you now have
the tools and strongback, but that's assuming that you build more than one.

Oh sure, I guess you pay yourself $10 an hour for labour. How do you do
that? Take $10 out of your left hand pocket and put it in your right hand
pocket? No, you save yourself the cost of paying someone else to build
your boat. Its a savings not an expense. First you write boatbuilding is
an act of love, now your write you want to pay yourself for it,
which makes you some kind of boatbuidling whore. Maybe you should rethink
your motivation. I build my boats to save money, as do
other amateur boatbuilders. Thats' what "amateur" means, "unpaid". So
don't try and add "self payment" to the cost of anyone's building his or
her own boat. You save the cost of labour, period.


Considering that you can buy a new 'glass boat for ~$2500 or a used one
for as little ~$1000 (I've bought several at that price), where is your

buying a used boat has noting to do with comparing the cost of buying a
new boat or bulding it yourself. it still cost 1/3 less to build a
stripper canoe or kayak compared to buying it off the shelf.

savings, Bill? You accuse me of imaginative, yet it's quite obvious that
your "1/3 savings" figure is wishful thinking at best. I enjoy building
boats, but I'm under no illusion that it saves me any money. The main
reason for building a boat (other than the recreational aspects of
woodworking) is that I get exactly what I want.

you have not shown that buying a boat costs less than 50% more than
building it yourself. I'm actually quite amazed at the strange ideas about
money expressed above. Do really beleive what you wrote?


Yet boat builders are still a MINUSCULE percentage of the total number
of kayakers. You really need to get a grip on the reality of the market.
To put some perspective on it, I belong to a club with over 400 members
in it. Out of those, I know of 9 (2.25%) who have built boats. That's
among paddlers who are dedicated enough to join a club. We represent
only a small fraction of the total kayaking population, the majority of
whom paddle plastic recreational boats. Based on that, I think it's safe
to say kayak builders represent well under 1% of the kayaking
population. Is that specific enough for you???

how did you get off on this rant? what we are discussing is the
possibility of custom designing a plywood or stipper kayak, and that it
cost no more to custom design one of these than to build from one set
plan. try to stay with the tour.

I've read
somewhere some Brian Nystrom guy built his own first boat at one time.

You read wrong. I built my third boat. My first two were commercial boats.

the first boat you built was the first boat your built, not the first
boat you owned.

I've already addressed this fallacy above. Either it's a "labor of love"
and you don't count the labor cost, or you're not saving anything. You
can't have it both ways, Bill.

your fallacy. your imaginary cash flow.

Where does this come from? I don't see any reason why a chine has to
cause turbulence. Lapstrake boats are not comparable with single chine
kayaks, whose chines are typically fully immersed and which have
smoother entries and exits. You're comparing apples and oranges.

water passes smoothly over a smooth surface. water passing over a hard
chine becomes turbulant when the angle of the surface changes abruptly.
why is this so difficlut to grasp?

...it shows exactly what I was talking about. For a given beam width,
the spherical hull has the least wetted surface. If you ignore the beam
width and look only at equal displacement, a spherical hull still has
the least wetted surface. Although shape E is not perfectly spherical,
it's pretty obvious that a spherical shape with slightly increased depth
would have as little or perhaps slightly less surface area. This
explains why racing boat hulls are narrow and round. It's too bad he
chose not to include such a sample in the diagram.

I think you need to define what you mean by "spherical hull". A sphere is
not a circle. Do you mean by "spherical" that the immersed section is a
semi-circle. I agree about the minimal girth, but can you name any
non-racing kayaks whose immersed section is a semi-circle? How do they
deal with the instability? Sponsons?

nope, the drag of the hard chine hull includes the turbulence about the
chine which is greater than the difference in friction resistance.

Again, where is the reference? I don't believe that a single hard chine
is going to cause turbulence in an of itself in a well designed kayak.

it occurs toward the top of the speed range when residual drag
overtakes surface drag. at low speeds its not important.


but
don't forget you can have a V-bottom hard chined boat which tracks better
than a round bottom hull with the same length and wetted surface and the
hard chined hull will have less residual resistance because it spends less
time slewing around, and more time going straight. as we have all seen,
the boat with the rounded bottom cross section will often have "deadwood"
added at the bow and stern or a skeg (or rudder) or both to help it track,
and these add wetted surface to the rounded hull.

You're drawing a lot of invalid conclusions here. A long, narrow,
rounded hull with straight keel line (typical racing hull configuration)
tracks VERY strongly.

there you go dragging in racing boats again. do you intend to limit your
part of the discussion to racing boats so you can prove some obsacure point?

... One reason why most of them have rudders is to
enable the paddler to turn the boat, not because it won't track. The

now you're really showing how little you actually know about kayaks. the
rudder is there for tracking, for the most part in cross winds. it's not there
for turning. however skegs and rudders are added to round bottom kayaks to
provide decent tracking which they can't get otherwise. I agree that as
the lenght of the boat increases tracking increases. Someboduy who shal
remain nameless mentioned in this newsgroup some time ago that too many
people buy kayaks which are too long for what they need. perhaps they do
it to get decent traking from a round bottom hull?

main reason for rudders is to get maximum efficiency from the powerplant
(the paddler). It's more efficient to have a small rudder to control the
direction of the boat than it is to use leans and sweep strokes, which
reduce the biomechanical efficiency of the stoke.

which means they can't get it from the hull shape they are using. they
have to stick on a skeg or rudder. either the hull slews around creating


By "deadwood" are you referring to bow and stern overhangs? If so, they
do nothing to aid tracking, as they're not in the water most of the time.

deadwood is extra hull under the bow or stern (or both) which improves
tracking by making the hull harder to turn. think of those long thin
entries on some knife blade bows. same at the stern.

I'll guarantee you that if you stick a graph in the faces of customers,
the overwhelming majority of them will have no idea what they're looking
at, nor will they care. On the other hand, if a dealer simply told them
that a particular boat was well suited to someone their size, that same
percentage would accept that. The few that would understand the graph
might ask "why", in which case you can offer a more detailed explanation.

but you just finished writing that most kayak salespeople don't know squat
about the boats they are selling.

what I imagien is teh designer supplied teh retialer with a DC with all
the infor on it, including a program which will graph power vs speed for
different body weights. the reatiler has an old $30 486 PC system in the
store so peopel can find out which boats are suited to them.

as for your comment about graphs, that's all they do in schools now.
every subject is full of graphs. they came in with th enew math in the 60's.
everybody with a high school diploma has been saturated with graphs.

While I certainly wouldn't question your data analysis capability, it
has nothing to do with the way people react to information in real
world. What makes perfect sense to you would be nothing more than
"technical gibberish" to most people. I've dealt with people in the real
world (as a retailer and as a technical trainer) and I can tell you
unequivocally that's a FACT.

thanks but what I did is just what you are saying, the display and
interpertation of graphical data. did you know pie charts are the worst
way to present data? peopel don't see vertical pie shaped sections teh
same way they see horizonatl pie shaped sections. there are lots of other
perceptual problem with graphs. however everybody uses them, everybody
expect them, and they are a good way of presenting numerical relations if
done properly.

Sorry Bill, but whether you like it or not, that's the way it works in
the real world. While I agree that that manufacturers should make
technical information available, doing so would be largely a wasted
effort as the overwhelming majority of customers would neither
understand it or care. Given that, I can't fault them for not wasting
their resources to distribute this information widely. Selling the boat
is the dealer's job; the manufacturer should provide them with the
information to do so, but they're not responsible for getting it to the
customer. If they want to put it on a web site where interested
customers can find it, fine, but including it in marketing literature
would be an unnecessary expense and waste of paper.

Its not techincal information when it's personal. It's personal
information. That's the real world. People's questions can be answered
with the right information. As I wrote earlier, it's the seller who
provides the right information for the buyer who will take sales away from
the seller who doesn't. As you wrote ealier, and as I have seen too, kayak
salespersons don't know much about the boats they sell and are not very
helpfull to buyers. Retail wages are low and aren't likely to improve. We
aren't likely to see knowlegeable people selling kayaks for low wages.
That's where computers can make a difference at the retail level for a
minimal outlay, a difference to both the buyer who will be more satisfied
with the boat he or she buys, and a difference to the retailer who
attracts business away from competitors.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

I'm looking at last season's "Boats and Paddles" booklet put out
by Mountain Co-op. They give the list price for every boat. That's
useful information for the buyer to have. They give the weigth for
every boat. That's uselful to know becaue all these boats will be
picked up and carried, some portaged. They give the capacity for
about half of the boats (weight and volume) which might be useful
to a buyer. It would be better to have it for all the boats but it
looks like the the manufacture (designer) didn't provide it. They
also give the length, beam, depth, and cockpit dimensions, none of
which is very useful to the buyer. Here is where the personal
information would be useful, ie the power vs speed graph for
different body weights, the body size, and perhaps the draft so
the buyer knows if it is a shallow water hull for his or her body
weight. Since Mountain Co-op is going to the expense of printing
the booklets they could use the same amount of money to provide
more relevant and meanignful information for the buyer.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...


Thats' what "amateur" means, "unpaid".

It can also be used as a derogatory to describe someone lacking knowledge or
skill.

in article , William R. Watt at
wrote on 6/7/04 9:00 PM:


Thats' what "amateur" means, "unpaid".

But the literal meaning is "to love" or "for love".

"Michael Daly" ) writes:
On 6-Jun-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote:

So do I based on what you wrote earlier about
the effect of hull scratches and gouges.

??? When did I ever write that gouges and scratches have a significant
effect on drag?

sorry? you claimed the opposite. that was the difference on which this
discussion is founded.


If the spherical hull does not have the least surface to volume ratio,
please tell us what shape does.

Could you explain the significance of "spherical" hulls, because only the arc
of the circle below the waterline gets wetted?

They are a starting point in looking at the effects of hull shape on resistance.

I see. I thought you were writing about an actual hull shape. I don't see
how anyone can disagree that the circumference of a cirle encloses the
largest area for the least perimeter, but actual kayak hulls aren't built
that way due to other considerations such as stability, draft, and
tracking. I build a perfectly circular hull once out of 55 gal plastic
drums cut in half. Photos on my website. I was informed of someone in
Mayalsia who built a boat out of large diameter plastic pipe. I had to put
sponsons on the boat to keep it from rolling over. Log drivers used to
have the same problem. The carried a long pole. My boat was 2 feet across
and 1 foot deep. Because of the perfectly round shpe it sat deep in the
water, 6" of draft. I guess it could be agruged that kayaks are
traditionally ocean-going craft and given the average depths of the
oceans, kayak draft is not important as it is in canoes.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

"Dave Van" ) writes:
"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...


Thats' what "amateur" means, "unpaid".

It can also be used as a derogatory to describe someone lacking knowledge or
skill.

yes, that's usually a "novice" or "beginner".

in my experience being paid does not mean doing better work. amateurs
building their own boats often do a better job. many overbuild.

the word "professional" has lost all it's meaning, as has "executive" when
applied to real estate.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned